Back
P. VELMURUGAN
Sakthivel – Appellant
Versus
Samivel Thevar (died) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai by allowing this first appeal.)
1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2011 passed in O.S.No.44 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Court, Pudukottai.
2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44 of 2011, on the file of the learned principal District Court, Pudukottai. The respondents are the defendants in the said suit. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents/defendants for partition and separate possession of their ½ share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds. After trial, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the present appeal before this Court.
3. The averments made in the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-
The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to the first defendant and his brother – Muthaiah Thevar, being Hindu joint family properties. T
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming partition to establish the division of properties, and the court may allow additional evidence if vital to decide the case.
Ancestral properties must be proven to remain joint family properties post-partition; otherwise, they are deemed separate and not subject to partition claims.
The court ruled that an oral partition established the properties as separate and self-acquired, barring claims for partition after 18 years and validating a gift deed executed by the coparcener.
The heavy burden of proof upon the proponent of oral partition before it is accepted, as per the settled principle of law by the Apex Court.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
A party may not amend a suit's claims regarding ownership of property in a manner contradicting original pleadings without introducing adequate supporting evidence, undermining the integrity of legal....
The claim of property as ancestral requires proof of lineage and sufficient income, with living together not granting rights. The second appeal is restricted to substantial questions of law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
